According to the Austin-American Statesman's Politifact Texas Perry-O-Meter Rick Perry at least twice promised he would not not run for President in 2012:

a)He told a questioner at a January 2010 debate that he would "absolutely" serve out his full new 4-year term.

b)In December 2010 Perry told Reuters, "I don't want to be president of the United States. I'm not going to run for the presidency of the United States."

And from EFC polfacts:

a) In a Nov 8, 2010 interview with Newsweek (after he had been re-elected):

"Not going to run for president. Not going to be a vice-presidential candidate. Not going to be in anybody's cabinet. And I suspect I'm not going to be anybody's ambassador either."

But in announcing the launch of his book tour on October 30, 2010, Perry was more ambiguous.

Responding to a question of his running for President in 2012 Perry said:

"No, I've answered that about as many times and as many ways as I can."

But he refused to commit to serving out a full term if re-elected:

"I'm guaranteeing people that I'll get in there and do the best job I can for 'em as governor...I just think it's all premature to be making a statement about you're going to be doing two, four, six or eight years from now--I don't ever take anything off the table."

From yahoo.com on May 25/2011:

"Rick Perry has repeatedly said he won't run for president in 2012 but there are signs he might not stick to his PLEDGE."

To whom it may concern:

I am a Palinista and I understand once Sarah Palin gets into the Presidential race she will be attacked for "quitting" (leaving office before her full term was up).

But here are the parameters on the issue imho;

1)Sarah Palin cannot be criticized by Rick Perry, a Perry operative or Perry supporter at any web site for "quitting". That is out of bounds and would be hypocritical.

2)If you are undecided and you choose to support Perry because in your mind Palin "quit" then you are also being a hypocrite and disingenuous.

3)If you are a Palinista, you have no right to criticize Perry for walking away before his full term is up (I am not criticizing Perry but just pointing out the facts).

4)And if you support someone other than Palin or Perry (eg Romney, Bachmann, Huntsman (he also left his post early, didn't he), Gingrich or Cain) neither your candidate nor yourself has any right to criticize Palin for "quitting" if you do not mention Perry in the same breath. Singling Palin out would be disingenuous.

In summary, records are records and facts are facts. Why isn't the media putting more focus on Perry "quitting" as they did with Palin?

I think the answer is obvious. The MSM doesn't want to do anything to undermine Perry in his quest to stop Palin from getting the nomination.

Sorry, I disagree. Perry may quit after being governor for 12 years, if he wins the election to be President. Palin quit after 2 1/2 years, not to be VP, she just up and quit. People can argue that it was the right thing for her to do, but nobody can deny that is exactly what she did. Would Palin have also quit, after serving 1/2 of a term, if McCain and her had won?

Rick Perry better make damned sure to put a muzzle on the people working for him with regards to the “quitting” issue and Sarah Palin.

If he does that good for him. But if one of his staff members (or himself) goes Ed Rollins on Sarah Palin and the quitting meme then it becomes all-out war between the Palinistas and the Perry supporters.

With all due respect, all your anticipatory contortions strike me as short-circuited, if not nonsense.
If Palin enters the race it will be clear (and worked out beforehand between her and Perry) that she will be in it to be his running mate. OF COURSE, the MSM and the Dems will try to paint them BOTH as hypocrites and “quitters”, thereby cancelling each other out in their eyes.
This makes it all the easier for them to continue promoting RINO Romney over both of them, which is what they always intended to do anyway.
Palin and Perry will speak in unison, with each distinguishing themselves from the other, but never going after one another, the way the overconfident Pawlenty did with Bachmann, apparently on the mistaken assumption that they were both front-runners.With your scenario, you’re overthinking what COULD happen with what is likely to happen, and makes logical sense to happen.
Palin will not enter the race if it involves “beating” Perry, because she’ll likely never do it. She could add even more votes to the ticket, the way she did in ‘08 with McCain, but this time the entire ticket is “for real”, and the voter can vote for BOTH and GET BOTH.

24
posted on 08/20/2011 7:04:10 PM PDT
by supremedoctrine
(No need for a tagline, but here it is anyway..........)

I do believe there is a difference between Palin abruptly quiting mid term more than 2 years before getting into another race and Perry running for office during his term. Perry’s actions are normal for elected officials. That somehow him running negates her decision is silly. I am not against Palin, and certainly have supported her over the past three years, but this charge is silly. I do not begrudge Palin’s decision because the legal situation was atrocious. It is part of her overall body of work and should be considered in the evaluation process. To me, both has strengths and weaknesses and a 2 year record is tough to fully evaluate, even though I believe she has some real strong decisions during that time.

I don’t want Perry to even visit the White House much less reside.....however, this is a bit much. Everyone running for office always says they would finish. Heck even business people say sure I am going to say with the company for years and then two years later another opportunity comes up.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.